<quoted text>You guys want to keep marriage an exclusive action; a club for opposite gender people only.

Actually a club for men and women, as husband and wives. You are not barred from the club. The membership is very simple.

That is the very definition of discrimination based on sexual orientation.

How so? Does any state require a statement or orientation prior to issuance of a marriage license?

If you and others are so afraid of your particular marriages losing their "meaning", all because some same-sex partners being allowed to marry, then you didn't have much of a marriage to begin with.

The point is not our "particular marriages", but marriage as a whole, a matter of public policy, a shared understanding of its purpose and function. By your reasoning, there'd be no reason to bar any consenting adult relationship. In which case what is the point, why license it at all.

<quoted text>No I am not expendable in my marriage, my wife is not expendable in our marriage, as a non-religious person I may be unfamiliar with your terms of people as expendable in a marrage.

Exactly, both the wife AND husband are needed in the marriage.

What I am saying is I am married, and my wife and I have not had to redefine our marriage in any way at all because same sex couples could marry, furthermore the court cases have been lost twice now by the supporters of Prop 8 and one of the many reasons for the loss is because they could not find a single married couple whose marriage was harmed by same sex couples being able to marry

The voters, twice, voted, for,this:

The Act added Section 308.5 of the Family Code, which read "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California".

Obviously the voters were concerned by attempts to redefine the legal meaning of marriage. If your argument is what harm will come of allowing same sex intimate personal sexual relationships to be designated marriage, then by that same reasoning, polygamy should also be allowed. If the sole argument is what harm will it cause individual marriages, then there is no reason to bar polygamy, or even siblings from marrying.

Why dont you tell us.... in what way was your marriage harmed by same sex couples being able to marry?

Why not tell me what benefit did my marriage, or your marriage, or any other marriage, enjoy, by allowing SSM? Did it strengthen our collective commitment to marriage, the conjugal, husband and wife version? Di it foster the belief that men and women, and the products of their union, children, are important, and government recognizes this by privileging the union of man and woman as husband and wife? Or does it promote the idea at marriage is simply a way a person's personal intimate adult relationship is granted a governemnt's benefits package?

Please tell us Big D, where is the line drawn if at all? Why bother licensing marriage at all?

You said: Close, but no cigar.--Other than gender, there is no difference between two same-sex people and opposite-sex people who decide to marry based on love, monogamy mutual respect, and lifelong commitment.You said: It's the reason marriage, as a distinct privileged relationship, exists in the first place. Otherwise why would it matter who married who, or didn't marry who?--You say that marriage is a "distinct privileged relationship" because of the potential for children. Yet hundreds of thousands (millions?) of opposite-sex couples either do not marry even though they create a child or they break apart their marriage even though they have children together.As I've said before, if you want to tie children so closely to marriage, then you need to radically redefine marriage as being only available to those couples who wish to have children.Sterile couples, older couples, and couples who do not wish to have children for whatever reason SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED to marry for any reason.You realize the ridiculousness of this, yet you continue to yammer on about how closely bound children are to marriage.Marriage is a legal contract between two people--not between two people and their children.If children were a part of the legal contract between their parents, then if their parents divorce, then they too would be divorced from one or both parents.You said: Individuals can access legal marriage as part of a pairing recognized by law, not couples. Why should marriage be fundamentally redefined?--Marriage would not be fundamentally redefined. Marriage at its most basic level is a legal contract between two unrelated, consenting, adult people--two human beings. That is why 15 countries and 12 states and the District of Columbia have taken gender away from their marriage certificates.

Marriage recognizes a man and woman as husband and wife. That's it! That's why men and women, who are sterile, or have no desire to have children, can still marry. Some couples who thought they couldn't have children, find out, surprise, that two go to bed, but three get up. Scientists have figured out that sex between men and women makes babies. Society benefits when both making love, and making babies, take place within the marital relationship. That's why there's no compelling reason to call a same sex relationship marriage. That's why, despite a few scattered historical examples, SSM never took root, never sustained itself.

One thing that puzzles me. First cousins can marry in several states, SSM is legal in some of those states. Why should same sex siblings be denied the right to marry. The whole "already kin" argument does't make sense here.

<quoted text>Exactly, both the wife AND husband are needed in the marriage.<quoted text>The voters, twice, voted, for,this:The Act added Section 308.5 of the Family Code, which read "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California".Obviously the voters were concerned by attempts to redefine the legal meaning of marriage. If your argument is what harm will come of allowing same sex intimate personal sexual relationships to be designated marriage, then by that same reasoning, polygamy should also be allowed. If the sole argument is what harm will it cause individual marriages, then there is no reason to bar polygamy, or even siblings from marrying.<quoted text>Why not tell me what benefit did my marriage, or your marriage, or any other marriage, enjoy, by allowing SSM? Did it strengthen our collective commitment to marriage, the conjugal, husband and wife version? Di it foster the belief that men and women, and the products of their union, children, are important, and government recognizes this by privileging the union of man and woman as husband and wife? Or does it promote the idea at marriage is simply a way a person's personal intimate adult relationship is granted a governemnt's benefits package?Please tell us Big D, where is the line drawn if at all? Why bother licensing marriage at all?

Before we get into all that, we have asked how same sex couples being able to marry has harmed your marriage.

You have been asked this by a couple of people now... still waiting for an answer, or we can dispense with the entire "Same sex couples harm marriage" argument, as we have dispensed with the entire marriage is all about procreation arguments which have already been shown to be garbage.

The lawyers could not bring a single example, but you seem to claim to know more than the lawyers that have failed to defend prop 8 so tell us... how was your marriage harmed?

<quoted text>Your marriage perhapsThey did not harm mine in any way at all, I think it is odd that someones marriage is so terribly affected by others being able to marry.In court the lawyers could not find a single couple whose marriage was harmed by others being able to marry, it was a critical flaw in their case. Not one single example was able to be given.

I am not married. I subsidize your marriage. I get no tax breaks or benefits like you do.

<quoted text>You guys want to keep marriage an exclusive action; a club for opposite gender people only.That is the very definition of discrimination based on sexual orientation.If you and others are so afraid of your particular marriages losing their "meaning", all because some same-sex partners being allowed to marry, then you didn't have much of a marriage to begin with.

I am not "you guys". I support SSM, simply because I see no COMPELLING arguments against it and I have gay friends that I want to be happy.

I am not afraid and most people against SSM are not afraid of it either, most of them just don't see the need for it. And they fear if we make marriage all inclusive, everyone will be married and it will mean nothing.

Does your version of "marriage equality" include everyone who wishes to be married? If no, who would you exclude? Why?

<quoted text>It isnt being fundamentally re-defined, we are just making it more inclusive.The thousands upon thousands of same sex couples legally married in the US today certainly did not re-define my marriage in any way at all.

Removing the gender part of "a man and a woman" most certainly is redefining marriage. And quite radically.

But it's OK! Call it what it is. Be honest for once. You'll never bring anyone over to your side by lying to them.

<quoted text>No I am not expendable in my marriage, my wife is not expendable in our marriage, as a non-religious person I may be unfamiliar with your terms of people as expendable in a marrage.What I am saying is I am married, and my wife and I have not had to redefine our marriage in any way at all because same sex couples could marry, furthermore the court cases have been lost twice now by the supporters of Prop 8 and one of the many reasons for the loss is because they could not find a single married couple whose marriage was harmed by same sex couples being able to marryNot oneWhy dont you tell us.... in what way was your marriage harmed by same sex couples being able to marry?

<quoted text>Actually a club for men and women, as husband and wives. You are not barred from the club. The membership is very simple.<quoted text>How so? Does any state require a statement or orientation prior to issuance of a marriage license?<quoted text>The point is not our "particular marriages", but marriage as a whole, a matter of public policy, a shared understanding of its purpose and function. By your reasoning, there'd be no reason to bar any consenting adult relationship. In which case what is the point, why license it at all.

1.) We are barred from marrying the person of our choice. You seem to have no problem with us shacking up out of wedlock. Many of us have long-term partners; much longer than straight people.

We want the rights and protections of marriage for our own needs. We are in no way attempting to redefine marriage. We only want legal status.

Your marriage would in no way be impacted.

2.) States have, by way of DOMA and other individual state constitutional amendment, have made it impossible for us to marry. So, yes, orientation is definitely a part of the marriage process.

3.) You guys are the ones who came up with marriage licenses. You guys are the ones who put together a whole set of protections and rights ONLY provided to legally married couples. And now you piss and moan because other couples want those rights and protections.

How petty! How childish!

One day, this issue will be over and done with. The only reason people like you are on here now is because we're breathing down your necks. You know that there is NOTHING that you can do to stop same-sex marriage from happening in this country. All you can do is flock to sites like this and spit into the wind.

Mainstream Christians have lightened up their attitudes toward homosexuality and gay rights. So have republicans.

How much longer do you think this can drag out?

We're in the military; openly fighting for the country. Do you honestly think that Americans are going to deny a basic right to people who are willing to lay their lives on the line?

<quoted text>I am not "you guys". I support SSM, simply because I see no COMPELLING arguments against it and I have gay friends that I want to be happy.I am not afraid and most people against SSM are not afraid of it either, most of them just don't see the need for it. And they fear if we make marriage all inclusive, everyone will be married and it will mean nothing.Does your version of "marriage equality" include everyone who wishes to be married? If no, who would you exclude? Why?

At this point, I would exclude you from marrying... If for no other reason than you are a dirt-bag.

You have been on here pretending to be a champion for all. It's such an obvious ruse.

<quoted text>At this point, I would exclude you from marrying... If for no other reason than you are a dirt-bag.You have been on here pretending to be a champion for all. It's such an obvious ruse.You climb up Kimare's ass; cuddling up with him; cheering him on...You lost any sense of believability to me long ago.

As he ( and no one else ) has been able to answer that question, I think we can now dispense with the whole same sex marriage harms marriage argument.No one can find a couple whose marriage was harmed by other people getting married. No one in this forum, and no one that the lawyers failing to defend Prop 8 could find either.We can file that in the trash along with the whole procreation argument.

No one has argued procreation is a requirement for marriage, that's your straw man. But if you want to argue that marriage has nothing to do with procreation you're going to lose. It's one of the main reasons the government is involved in marriage. And one of the main reasons marriage was invented.

If we remove all restrictions on marriage, Everyone will be married and marriage will mean nothing. Someone has to be excluded Big D, so who's it going to be? I say SSM, poly and incest marriage all deserve the same respect and consideration. Where do you draw the line Biggy?

News update May 23, 2013 - Corner moves it's team in, the city of Glendora has provided a Bobcat excavator with a front scoop and driver to excavate the backyard, that left and a smaller Kubota tractor with a backhoe has taken over 12:30 P.M. May 23, 2013..

May 22, 2013 - a news helicopter has been hovering for about an hour over the big dig area. The house in question is located at the end of a cul-de-sac, three owners have occupied this house since Robert Byron sold it and moved to Covina, Ca. we have tracked down the first owner to buy this house and are currently investigating.

Glendora, California 1978 a 24 year old lady went missing, now the LA County Sheriffs Department is on the job and digging up a back yard in the city of Glendora, California 91740.

The person who reported her missing was her husband, the house has been sold three times since then, her car was found in a parking lot of Ontario Airport.

Glad to see some real police department work is being carried out by the sheriffs department on 555 Essex Street.

The neighborhood kids like the husband, but no wife? Wonder what happened to her remains?More insider information to follow.

According to sources the back yard of this house in questions was not landscaped and only consisted of tall weeds and hard pack bare soil, dead pets were buried in the backyard before someone landscaped the entire backyard.

A patio concrete slab and cover was built before Robert B. sold the house for he first time.

Glad to see the GPD is doing crowd and traffic control.

Stand back, the Corner has brought out the dogs and shovels to start unearthing something buried in this houses backyard.

<quoted text>No one has argued procreation is a requirement for marriage, that's your straw man. But if you want to argue that marriage has nothing to do with procreation you're going to lose. It's one of the main reasons the government is involved in marriage. And one of the main reasons marriage was invented.If we remove all restrictions on marriage, Everyone will be married and marriage will mean nothing. Someone has to be excluded Big D, so who's it going to be? I say SSM, poly and incest marriage all deserve the same respect and consideration. Where do you draw the line Biggy?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.